The term parental alienation syndrome (PAS), first
described by Richard Gardner, is also sometimes referred
to as "brainwashing."(1) Its concept and dynamics include
a complex network of involvement and motives on the part
of all members acting in this family drama. Furthermore,
each of them usually takes his or her role in the
alienation process well before the dissolution or
separation process begins.

Additionally, one should be mindful that in some
instances a child does not reject a parent immediately
following a parental separation but rather based upon
actual or true life experiences. Thus, this syndrome
affects intact, as well as divided, families.

PAS, in its most extreme form, refers to a disturbance in
which a child is preoccupied with viewing one parent as
all "good" and the other as all "bad." The former is
loved and idealized, while the other is hated and
verbally vilified.

The PAS hostility expressed by the child is generally
characterized without any outward expression of guilt,
embarrassment, or ambivalence. Accordingly, this conduct
may be especially puzzling, even to a trained observer,
if there is no apparent factual basis to justify the
depth of the emotions involved.

In severe cases, the child may also suffer from
psychosomatic complaints such as headaches, vomiting,
loss of sleep, refusal to eat, and the like when faced
with the prospect of visiting the "bad" parent. More
often, however, the mild to moderately alienated child
may express rejection by verbally disparaging the "bad"
parent or destroying gifts or refusing to engage in
family activities which were once enjoyed with that
parent.

Swiftly orchestrating a remedial
plan will greatly diminish the PAS process
and, in most cases, eliminate it completely.

Contradictory as it may seem, such a child may also be
able to show affection for the "bad" parent when alone,
but will never do so in the presence of the "good"
parent. This inconsistent "chameleon" quality is a
diagnostic hallmark of PAS.

Routinely, the child living with the alienating parent
(AP) for the majority of the time is in a classic
"no-win" situation. If the child defies the AP's
directive in vilifying the targeted parent (TP), the
child is guilty of betrayal of their primary caretaker;
conversely, if he or she supports these allegations or
contributes to them, then the child betrays the TP. The
child cannot win, and the deep conflict thus creates a
passageway for the possibility of actual delusional
thinking on his or her part, as well as that of the AP.

Leaving a child in this pathological environment is most
damaging and, under these circumstances, a child may many
times become anxious, isolated and depressed. In time, if
proper intervention is not forthcoming, the child
develops a deep and profound sense of self-hatred and
shame for condemning the other parent. These children
tend to become despondent, withdrawn, and develop
psychopathic manipulative characteristics which may be
carried into adulthood.

Actors, Programming, and Techniques

First of all, it is fallacious to believe that all of the
responsibility for this process should be attributed
solely to the AP, even though that parent has engaged in
highly observable maneuvering or self-serving actions. A
child usually has some contributing motive, even though
it may be extremely vague or more defensible than
malevolent.

Of course, there are always variables, such as where both
parents appear to be playing their roles in the
alienation process but the child will not join with them
or is well able to disengage and maintain independence.
The same may also happen with the TP, or the process may
not fully play out at all because of a geographical
distance involved or by the extremely limited time
schedule between that parent and the minor child.(2)

Typically, the AP has an agenda for turning the child
against the other parent. It helps to counterbalance that
parent's feelings of inadequacy, lack of self-worth,
powerlessness, or merely being overwhelmed with the
future prospect of facing judicial proceedings. It may
include revenge, guilt, fear of loss of the child, or
loss of the role of primary parent or the desire to have
proprietary control over the child, as well as jealousy
of the other parent, the desire to obtain "leverage" as
to equitable distribution, child support, or alimony, a
past history of abandonment, alienation, physical or
sexual abuse, self-protection, or even the loss of one's
identity.

Alienation techniques may include attacking
the other parent's character, telling the
child the "truth about past events," playing
the victim, or being indulgent or permissive.

These motives lead the AP to program the child. Various
techniques are used, such as: denying the existence of
the TP, labeling the child as fragile, and thus requiring
AP's continuous protection, creating an allegiance
between the child and parent in a parental struggle,
taking normal differences and turning them into a
"good/bad" or "right/wrong" solutions, generalizing from
specifics to global meanings, putting the child in the
middle, comparing good experience with bad experience,
attacking the TP's character or lifestyle, telling the
child the "truth about past events," sympathy seeking,
playing the victim, communications or actions prompting
fear, anxiety, guilt, intimidation, threats, or merely
being overly indulgent or extremely permissive.(3)

One must realize that the TP may also have a motive,
including a hidden desire to abandon the family, intense
anger at the AP, self-righteousness, past family
problems, a personal history of escaping, fragile mental
health, or fear of losing a relationship with the child.

The TP, for his or her part, in the past, may have well
engaged in conduct leading the minor to believe that he
or she wishes to abandon or harm the child. Additionally,
he or she may also have been violent or insensitive.
Since the diagnostic characteristic of PAS is its
"license with reality," one can be sure that the
allegations of the TP's wrongdoing will, in any event, be
grossly distorted or even rendered fictional. Still,
nevertheless, they appear to be deeply believed by the
AP, as well as the child.

Lastly, the child's motivation may also include coping
with the loss, resolving parental conflict and other
normal developmental pressures.

Proof and Evidence

While the constant theme of the alienation may be easily
identified, it is not necessarily always susceptible of
specific proof. The difficulty, of course, is when there
are no witnesses present to refute allegations, and such
statements are offered in a courtroom setting or to a
guardian ad litem or a mental health professional in
conference. Practically, it is emotionally difficult to
discount such accusations because they are made with high
emotional pitch, urgency, and a desperation as to a
description of the incidents involved. All of the
foregoing contributes to believability, especially where
the minor child is relating a self-reporting trauma and a
real danger to him or her. Such accounts may appear to be
very convincing to the listener.

Make no mistake about it, individuals with either PAS or
a related malicious syndrome will and do lie! They are
convincing witnesses, and their manipulative skills may
influence others to follow suit. Furthermore, they have
absolutely rational explanations for interference with
access and contact by the other parent or the complaint
of not sharing parental responsibility. Conveniently,
they leave out of their testimony pertinent details or
they maneuver the facts in such a manner to create an
entirely false impression.

Unfortunately, many are successful and run circles around
opposing counsel and the court. As a result, over a
period of time, the suffering parent becomes emotionally
and financial depleted and withdraws the issue from the
court system.

In attempting to find "family truths," one must of
necessity rely upon typical patterns often only detected
by mental health specialists or psychotherapists. These
include conflicting or contradictory statements by a
child or the AP as to past representations, factual
histories, or observations or perceptions made; spying on
the TP and reporting it, even to a professional; the
child engaging in character assault as to the TP or
friends or family; the child parroting the themes of the
AP; the child's use of similar phrases or words; the
child offering up inappropriate or indelicate information
about the other parent; colluding by word or action with
the AP and giving only one-sided information to a
professional or guardian ad litem; phrasing or speaking
only positively about the AP while verbalizing only
negatively and derogatorily about the TP; and, lastly,
the child's lack of affinity or association with the TP's
family, friends, or associates.(4)

Clear instances must be cited to the court since PAS is
not generally accepted as a diagnostic tool because it
has not yet gained acceptance among experts in the
field.(5)

Alienation does not occur overnight. It is gradual and
consistent and is directly related to the time spent with
the alienating parent. To heal the relationship, the
child requires quality time with the targeted parent and
continued communication to serve as a reality check and
in order to counterbalance the effect of ongoing
alienation at home.

The alienating parent, on the other hand, requires time
to complete the brainwashing of the child without
interruption. Thus, manipulation of time is a prime
weapon in his or her hands.

Unlike cases of child abuse, where time away from the
abuser sometimes helps to repair a damaged relationship,
any time lost in repairing a child-parent relationship
only furthers the goal of alienation.

While the court needs time to assess each case and move
cautiously, the court must remember that with the passage
of time, the child grows to be a staunch corroborator.

In these instances, a judicial wish to maintain the
status quo in the life of the child pending the outcome
of a determination of PAS will only cause that minor to
drift further away from the nonresidential parent.
Additionally, referrals to mediation or the use of
attorney-client negotiations are often futile because
implicit in these processes is a lack of a swift
directive that is often perceived by the alienator as
denoting approval of his or her behavior.

These authors believe that only the force of law may
shorten the death of PAS in a given case! An early
judicial precedent of a clear and forceful nature is
needed!

Brainwashing takes time. Early judicial
intervention may send a clear message
to the alienating parent to back off, and
will reduce the tension between the child
and the other parent.

Swift judicial intercession by an award of extra or
compensatory visitation to the TP oftentimes sends a
clear message to the AP to "back off" and, within a short
period of time, the tension and stress that previously
existed between the child and the TP has completely
disappeared.

Of all of the research on the effects of separation and
divorce, the one conclusion that is never debated is that
children fare better when they maintain a close
relationship with both parents. It is generally accepted
that the loss of one parent is detrimental to a child.
The only exception seems to be in the case of physical,
sexual, or clear emotional abuse.

Accordingly, in fashioning any remedy to PAS, the court,
counsel, and the mental health specialist or psychologist
must begin with the premise that children will do best
when having access to both parents. No proof should be
required to support this conclusion, and equal access to
both the mother and the father should be legally
presumed.

Inequality of access should result only when there is
specific evidence that the accused parent has been guilty
of abuse or has clearly violated good parental judgment
on a somewhat consistent basis; otherwise, there should
be no deviation.

Without keeping this perspective in mind, it is indeed
difficult to establish any clear sense of the truth
because one will always be caught up in the endless
chasing of alleged events that are just beyond specific
proof but, yet, nevertheless, found to be credible
because of the inferences drawn from them.

It is only with the above presumption in mind, as well as
that of shared parental responsibility, that a baseline
can be created whereby the AP's allegations, as well as
the TP's responses and counter-allegations, may be tested
in a true light.

The strategies utilized by the AP to alienate the
children and the other parent vary from the most subtle
to the most obvious. They all, however, have a consistent
theme: any opportunity for the AP to control access and
contact or the sharing of major decisions with reference
to the child is apt to be exploited. Therefore, limiting
the avenues available removes this interference obstacle.

An interesting concept recently advanced to correct this
dilemma is the multi-directional court order.(6) The
court order specifies exactly the dates, times, and
conditions of visitation. Further, it directs all of the
persons closely associated with the AP, as well as the
TP, to comply with the court order.

For example, it defines an exact date and time visitation
schedule, as well as a precisely defined neutral location
for visitation transfer, if that is required.

It may appoint an individual agreeable to both parties or
appointed by the court to monitor and supervise the
visitation transfers, if required.

Clearly worded authorization is given to all law
enforcement officers to execute the transfer of the child
specified in the order and, should a parent violate the
specified date and time to deliver the child, the court
order directs the law enforcement agency to assist the
victimized parent in locating his or her child and,
additionally, arrest the violating parent.

Ample authority to school personnel to provide whatever
access is meaningful to the nonresidential parent is also
spelled out.

Clear directives to all personnel involved in any
activity relative to the child is given with the right to
permit the nonresidential parent full access to any
organization involving the child, should it be
educational, financial, medical, professional,
recreational, religious, or otherwise.

Lastly, it contains authorization to any individual and a
directive to assist the nonresidential parent so that no
behavior will transpire which will interfere with the
contact and access rights accorded to him or her by the
court order.

The order does not contain empty threats but rather
delineates the penalties that may be imposed if the court
order is violated.

A drafting suggestion may be to include a step-up of the
sanctions involved with an appropriate list of penalties
at the court's discretion which may include increased
parental access and contact by the TP, monetary fines,
the posting of security, community service, payment of
attorneys' fees and costs, incarceration, and loss of
primary residential responsibility and primary
residential custody, Schutz v. Schutz, 522 So. 2d 874
(Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Also meaningful is a public apology
as a sanction. This apology may be to the child in the
courtroom, along with a promise not to interfere again,
or a letter of apology to others, such as school
personnel, organizational leaders, or one involved in a
religious activity of the child. Schutz v. Schutz, 581
So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1991).

The Role of the Attorney, Psychologist, Court and a
Remedial Plan

From the general overview previously discussed, it is
easy to see how PAS cases lend themselves to productive
intervention, be it by court decision or voluntary
settlement. One important roadblock is, however, fear.

Many attorneys or other professionals, especially
therapists, tend to shy away from direct confrontation
with the AP out of fear of being wrong. The price of such
error is certainly harmful to the minor child, as well as
a future malpractice action or criminal charge,
especially in the case of a psychotherapist. While
generally these clinicians do not fender "black and
white" recommendations, they will in this instance most
generally engage in lukewarm generic advice and, by doing
so, directly or indirectly support the PAS.

In all events, successful intervention of PAS requires
coordination by the court and all members of the legal
and mental health community.

The attorney for the TP will find a receptive audience as
a client, while the attorney for the AP has a more
difficult role. The AP, having invested substantial time
and collected substantial evidence, wants the attorney,
mental health professional and judicial system to agree
with him or her.

Accordingly, this attorney must be called upon to
exercise professional judgment and to avoid being swept
up in the process of PAS by remaining neutral or not
focusing entirely on all of the known evidence.

In any event, the attorneys must cooperate together in
securing representation for each interested party,
including the minor child. The appointment of a guardian
ad litem provides a special opportunity for additional
coordination of efforts and, at long last, some
collaboration in the fact finding process as to PAS.

Attorneys representing these parents are ill-equipped to
render the necessary professional judgment required to
bring the family back to a more constructive route, and
thus the next step is to involve a mental health
professional who is familiar with family law, custody
assessment, and PAS. These authors recommend a
court-appointed expert for this purpose.

The role of the court-appointed psychologist must be to
first identify the causation and rejection of a parent by
the child and to determine whether or not it is the
result of PAS.

This psychological evaluation, to be used as the integral
part of the remedial plan, must go beyond the
identification process and be directly oriented toward
the motives of all family members, the defense factors or
functions of PAS in the family, and the specific
techniques employed and patterns involved.

Further, the evaluation must be dedicated to routing out
the extent of the alienation and the psychological or
emotional damage done. A written evaluation is prepared
and forwarded to the court and counsel.

Once the evaluation is completed, then, and only then,
should joint corroboration on a rehabilitative plan
begin. It should hopefully be nonadversarial, but if the
controversy still brews, the court must quickly intervene
and use its authority.

The court, at this point, should encourage joint
negotiations or family law mediation as being preferable
to a non-jury trial. Even, however, should these
alternatives prove futile, the trial judge is now,
nevertheless, in the position of having an in-depth
knowledge of the causation and extent of the family chaos
at hand and a useful roadmap in the way of the evaluation
to help chart a course for its correction.

Any intervention plan must be based upon the premise that
there is a distinct advantage to having an on-going
relationship between the minor children and the TP. This
is the goal of the remedial plan!

By drawing in, and with all family members contributing,
the end product hopefully will reflect the airing of all
family views and thus a better prospect for a family
contract or compact.

Any meaningful plan should include a provision for a
neutral or independent mental health expert to be
appointed or selected as a monitor relative to the future
needs of the child and as a "safe harbor" for that minor.
It should also provide for a referral as to separate
therapists for each of the parents, as well as perhaps an
on-going evaluation by the guardian ad litem and
court-appointed expert.

In any event, once the evaluation is completed, swiftly
orchestrating such a plan to fruition will greatly
diminish the PAS process and, in most cases, eliminate it
completely. Acting in this manner and establishing the
benefits of a renewed and continuing relationship, the
family now begins to draw closer together in providing
solutions rather than problems, and the child, once and
for all, is finally relieved of previous emotional
pressures.

Michael R. Walsh is a sole practitioner in Orlando. He is
a board certified marital and family lawyer, certified
mediator and arbitrator and a Fellow of the American
Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. For more than 20 years,
he has been a frequent lecturer and author for The
Florida Bar.

J. Michael Bone, Ph.D, is a sole practice psychotherapist
and certified family law mediator in Maitland. He
specializes in divorce and post-divorce issues involving
minor children, and has a special interest in PAS. He has
served as an expert witness on these and related topics
and has been appointed by the court to make
recommendations involving PAS and families.

This column is submitted on behalf of the Family Law
Section, Martin L. Haines, chair, and John Morse, editor.